As the dust settles on George Lucas' decision to abandon plans for a museum in Chicago, the group at the center of the controversy says the very public debate has left it more convinced than ever of its mission.

"I think it's strengthened our position," Friends of the Parks board President Lauren Moltz said. "Our lakefront is one of our city's finest features, a gem enjoyed by everyone. It's because of these kinds of battles that we have been able to enjoy it for generations."

The parks group became the most vocal opponent of the famous filmmaker's plans to build a lakefront museum in Chicago. The organization's federal lawsuit, aimed at stopping construction of the project south of Soldier Field, ultimately was the barrier that forced Lucas to turn his gaze elsewhere.

As prospects for the museum in Chicago crumbled, a frustrated City Hall and the museum's high-profile supporters lashed out at the group's membership, labeling them a disorganized "special interest group" that "hijacked" the process and cost the city the cultural and job-creating opportunity of a lifetime.

"All (the mayor) can do is complain about us because we won," Friends of the Parks Executive Director Juanita Irizarry said. "The people that really hate us were not our supporters in the first place."

Irizarry and Moltz, as they said repeatedly during the nearly two-year debate over the museum's location, reiterated the group was never opposed to Lucas' idea of a housing a collection of his digital and traditional art in Chicago. The issue, they said, was that the "Star Wars" creator insisted on selecting sites along the lakefront, public trust land they argued should be open and clear space.

"We feel it's really unfortunate," Moltz said. "Our issue was just that he wanted to put it on the lakefront. We're sorry he made the decision to leave rather than look at any of the other viable sites that would have been a win-win for the city."

So how will the Lucas Museum fight shape Friends' fortunes going forward? Irizarry and Moltz said that while the group's executive team had robust, even contentious discussions about the Lucas issue during the last several months, the group has emerged united and dedicated to its goal of preserving the city's open spaces and working to improve Chicago's parkland.

See the evolving plans and renderings for the now-defunct Lucas Museum of Narrative Art that was to be built near Chicago's lakefront.

Irizarry acknowledged the group's "dip in finances" in recent years but said fundraising efforts have not been affected by the Lucas Museum situation.

"None of it had to do specifically with our Lucas Museum battle," Irizarry said. "At least that has not been communicated with us."

She said the group has experienced an increase in small donations this year, with some people specifically giving money because of Friends' lakefront preservation position.

Weathering criticism is nothing new for the group, which for decades has opposed development, construction and a multitude of lakefront projects. Then, as now, Friends was on the receiving end of frustrated comments from residents and elected officials who objected to the group's work to keep the Lake Michigan shoreline open, free and clear.

The group drew scorn in the 1980s for its fight against the construction of a fish-cleaning station at Diversey Harbor, fought against a proposed maritime museum at the mouth of the Chicago River and a Ft. Dearborn reconstruction south of McCormick Place.

"This shouldn't be a surprise that Friends of the Parks stands up for a publicly accessible lakefront," said the group's retired, longtime executive director, Erma Tranter, herself the target of scorn during the group's battles of decades past. She now serves as a consultant to the group. "For 40 years, they've been doing this."

The group, the Tribune wrote in 1986, was part of "a growing militancy of anti-building forces" that was "seeking to roll back the march of parking lots, museums and tennis courts in favor of peace, quiet and grassy green vistas."

And just like in the Lucas Museum case, the group filed a federal lawsuit aimed at stopping construction along the lakefront. In the 1980s, the lawsuit targeted construction of new Lake Shore Drive ramps at Fullerton Parkway and Belmont Avenue. The action in court led to a judge-approved compromise that scaled back the length of the Belmont ramp.

The group has suffered its share of setbacks as well, most notably when it was on the losing side of battles against the remodeling of Soldier Field and its opposition to locating Barack Obama's presidential library on city parkland.

Irizarry declined to say how much money the group spent on legal fees related to the Lucas fight, as did their lead attorney, Tom Geoghegan. But Irizarry did say Geoghegan's firm provided services at a "deeply discounted rate."

The legal aspects of the Friends-Lucas Museum case remain undecided by the courts. Lucas pulled the plug before the rulings on the merits from both a federal appeals panel and a district court judge. City lawyers then withdrew their appeals court petition.

The central argument of Friends' case had centered on the public trust doctrine, arguing the Lake Michigan shoreline, and the lands formerly part of the lake, should be protected for the enjoyment of all of the state's residents. The construction of a $750 million museum, and the proposed lease of Chicago Park District land to the museum, violated those principles, the group argued.

Geoghegan said the fight over the Lucas Museum along the lakefront moved the concept of the public trust doctrine to the forefront of Chicagoans' minds and made residents stop to consider what they cherish most about the city's shoreline.

"This has made everyone aware there is a protection of the lakefront and it needs to be considered very gravely," Geoghegan said. "I think this will have an effect on the public consciousness for years to come."

He bristles at the elitist label for Friends, or when the group is considered tone-deaf to the desires of ordinary Chicagoans.

"Look at the people who go to enjoy the lakefront or are along the path — joggers, walkers, fishermen, people just out there grilling or looking at the sunset," Geoghegan said. "That's happening because it's free, open and clear. That costs zero dollars to do. It's very egalitarian."

But not everyone agrees, of course. One man, motivated by the debate over the Lucas Museum and Friends of the Parks' characterization of the public trust doctrine, is taking steps to form a new group that will in part try to counterbalance the group's open space mission.

"They're doing the public a disservice," said Gino Generelli, who is launching an organization called the Public Spaces Advisory Council. "We want to popularize the notion that public lands can be used for a variety of purposes."

Generelli, a 34-year-old South Loop resident who owns his own technology consulting company, hopes his non-profit group will allow for a more robust dialogue about the future of the city's shoreline. He said he believes parks, museums and cultural institutions can co-exist in locations such as parks and the lakeshore.

"The more I learned about our history and our lakefront and the public trust, the more irate I became," Generelli said. "We're not really looking to battle it out with Friends of the Parks, but we don't want their version of what is a public benefit to be the only option, either."

With the Lucas Museum situation behind them, Friends of the Parks is looking to regroup and refocus on what it calls its bread and butter: educational programs for children and its work to improve parks across the city, efforts that happen outside the glare of the media.

And while Irizarry said she believes the fight against the Lucas proposal will serve as a deterrent to those pondering similar lakefront projects in the future, the group will not shy away from another battle — no matter how unpopular.

A version of this article appeared in print on July 03, 2016, in the News section of the Chicago Tribune with the headline "Walking tall after Lucas Museum victory - Friends of the Parks unfazed by critics, ready to fight again" —
Today's paperToday's paper | Subscribe